M.J.Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joanne,
>
> You write, “…there is the fourth choice which you
> are not considering. As he writes: "BOTH chance
> and necessity (natural selection) are essential."
>
>
> Actually, I was considering it. It appears in my
> list under, “…and so on.”
It's too bad you didn't you didn't make that clear by saying so, instead of writing "...and so on."
>
> You write, “Maybe that's because the questions
> suggest the questioner has missed something
> important.”
>
> Indeed it may be so. However, would you not agree
> that it is then incumbent on the person or persons
> being questioned to establish what the questioner
> knows and not blindly and, dare I say, arrogantly
> assume that the questioner either doesn’t
> understand the subject under examination or is
> simply ignorant of some of its points?
In a classroom setting perhaps, but not on these boards. Here, if someone makes an assertion and offers some defense for that assertion, the questionee has a right to draw conclusions. And since you've already acknowledged that you don't understand all the points, why are you finding fault with me now for seeing that in your questions?
>
> You write, “ID pronponents do not offer scientific
> interpretations that better explain the evidence.
> They offer non-science or junk science.”
>
> I have touched on this in a post I wrote a few
> minutes ago and addressed to all following this
> thread. I am most interested to learn what you
> understand I.D. to be or mean.
>
> You write, “The jury is not out; there is a
> verdict. These examples you mention are identical
> to the question of the bacteria's tail in the New
> Yorker article in the link. Read that again. Then,
> read up on natural selection.”
>
> Your jury may not be out, but mine most certainly
> is; and do you not think that I would do well to
> not only read the New Yorker article in the link
> and read up on Natural Selection, but also read up
> on the subject of I.D. (not to be confused, of
> course, with Creationism).
> If you will allow me the observation, I think one
> needs to study all sides of any argument to get a
> proper and balanced view, don’t you?
No, because there are not two sides to this argument. There are challenges from proponents of junk science who don't understand what they are attacking. As far as I'm concerned, you can read whatever you like.